Oprah Winfrey for President?

[Chase]

Hey guys. It's 2018 - which means it's a major political year in America. Democrats are going to be looking to surge back in a traditionally rough Mid-term after a stunning 2016 that involved the rise of President Trump and Republicans weathering their traditionally rough election year in order to hold onto the Congress.

 

Recently - a name has arisen for a prospective 2020 candidate. Oprah Winfrey. Her Golden Globes speech was heard across the country as a potential salvo of a Trump rebuttal.

 

Here's 3 reasons why the O would be a great candidate (and three reasons otherwise.)

 

#HireMeBuzzfeed

 

---

 

Good: Oprah is the liberal Donald Trump.

 

Sometimes - fighting fire with fire is a good thing. With Trump's seemingly obvious bid for re-election safe ...for now... from Republican challengers and the impeachment process, we would get a potential clash between self-made names with made-for-TV personas. She also would have a clean blouse as a significant newbie to the politics game, whereas Trump's incumbency tosses some of his formerly successful mystique in the garbage.

 

Not Good: She's the liberal Donald Trump.

 

Are Democratic voters really going to give credence to Trump by copying his campaign's unknowns? On top of that - if Trump is an ineffectual president coming in as a newbie - is inserting their own novice after him going to be helpful?

 

Good: Oprah is a champion of liberal identity politics and has the record to back it up.

 

The O doesn't only champion certain groups from the stage. She acts and provides on their behalf. And she looks the part as a woman of color herself! As a candidate - this has massive upside from the former Obama coalition that she called out personally, to Republican women who admire her work.

 

Bad: Democrats are trying to move beyond identity politics.

 

The Clinton debacle is often attributed to many a thing - from Russia tampering with the election to Hillary being an unlikeable candidate. One of the things the establishment on the left determined was that Democrats focused too hard on identity issues and left many other people behind. Can Oprah be Oprah and still reach the rural, whiter, Democrat that cares more about healthcare and the economy?

 

Bad: Politics inherits a dangerous new precedent that squashes opportunity.

 

This last negative is more on the consequence and not on Oprah herself. If the elite celebrity is the new face of politics as a rule - it would discourage political careers for the opponents in those races. This creates an unequal opportunity issue - and one that if Oprah were their nominee the Democrats would have to take equal ownership of.

 

Good: She's genuinely a good person.

 

If there's one thing Trump the politician seems to lack - it's sincerity. Furthermore his firing folks on his reality tv show contrasts with Oprah giving away expensive things on her own show. She genuinely takes care of others - and her policy angle would likely reflect that.

 

What are you guys' thoughts?

[YinYang9705]

Oh please God no

Adding on to this, if Oprah really does run for president, it would set a horrible standard, basically inviting any celebrity with any amount of popularity into trying to run, turning the election process into a farce, or even more of one depending on your views

 

In short, please don't let the elections turn into a celebrity popularity contest, I beg of you God 

[Youmu9]

I hope she gives everyone in America a free car. That would be the only plus for me.

[Eviora]

Can we just not start this yet? I still have trauma left from 2016.

[5hift]

wHaT COuLd pOssIBly gO WrONg?

 

 

 

[SilverAngelus]

I'm more interested to know what Josh Peck thinks about this. <3

 

@Youmu9 As much as I would love a free Ferrari, I don't think that'll be happening anytime soon. A lot of people could lose jobs and money.

@Eviora  I wish you didn't feel said trauma. 

[honeybutterfly]

Politicans and politicians only should have political roles and be legislator, civilians should do civilians instead.
I say this because everywhere and on every level of importance, elected civilians with no political culture/experience have messed up (most recently -of course- Trump himself but he's not the only one).

 

So no, as much as I love Oprah as a journalist/media personality she should stick to support a candidate and not being one herself.

 

[Dreamy]

please, just get a scientist.

[Maelstrom]

idk, my first gut reaction is 'no thanks, idk how qualified she'd be for the job'. second reaction was, 'she has a ton of money and could/would likely hire qualified people to positions (read as people who know wtf science is and are experts in their fields of work)'. Trump could have done that, but instead he gave positions and jobs to his rich business friends and family... only to ignore their advice at least half the time anyways. He also loaned his own campaign money that was paid back later by actual donations from other people, then spent shittons of taxpayer money to frequently travel to resorts he owns to entertain people and golf. This man ain't about doing anything but filling his own pockets.

 

Back to Oprah. I honestly don't know much about her. She's rich, owns and runs her own entertainment business and whose opinions are influential. I think I read the first Harry Potter book in middle school cuz my advanced English teacher saw her promoting it or something in her book club. She's also been know to given away extravagant gifts to all of her audience members, but I've never watched an episode in my life, so I have no real feel for her political stances other than she would be liberal as hell. I have no idea how far she'd go to re-adjust budgets, for example. And yeah, she has that major television personality thing going against her, especially after Trump.

 

Honestly, just give me Bernie or McCain. As much as some people want to have our first female president already, let's hope the DNC learned something and don't bring back Hillary as their front runner. I'd say best bet for that little bit of history would be Michelle Obama, but that family looks to be enjoying the hell out of NOT being the white house. Elizabeth Warren is no slouch either... But it all boils down to individual political stances, doesn't it.

 

 

[Chase]

I think what it ultimately comes down to is that the Democrats have "actual politicians" that - while young - are microcosms of the Oprah effect without scrimping on political proof of validity.

 

Cory Booker could be the second African American president.

 

Kristen Gillibrand is a female politician who isn't Hillary Clinton - which might have been the difference last time around.

 

Kamala Harris is a woman of color.

 

Then of course you have Bernie likely sticking around - and perhaps Warren - both of whom are considerably liberal without being "identity politics" candidates.

 

Oprah is an interesting option - she is the most appealing candidate from a campaign finance standpoint even next to Sanders. However - like Trump - she's voted for Republicans despite identifying as a D. Which of her policies are conservative? Hell. She might get MY vote over Trump or the 3rd party candidate depending on where those rightward leans are.

 

---

 

I want to see Democrats nominate someone young but with experience. I think with a Republican Congress likely in 2020 (even if the R's have a rough mid-term for once) if you have a younger politico who can be patient and learn to arm wrestle in divided government - you might have the next Barack Obama. I feel like the field isn't short on diversity on that side of the aisle either.

 

Sanders is a poor choice because he can't garner moderate liberal support and is much too soft on ID politics to encourage voters of color to coalesce around him. Warren may fare better - but only because she can fight Trump back verbally.

 

At that point, she risks having a Hillary campaign.

[Magus]

How about no. She is a talk show host, not a politician. (That being said how the f did trump win with that logic) As far as candidates go, just give me another Bernie.

[Ojama Yellow]

10 hours ago, YinYang9705 said:

Oh please God no

Adding on to this, if Oprah really does run for president, it would set a horrible standard, basically inviting any celebrity with any amount of popularity into trying to run, turning the election process into a farce, or even more of one depending on your views

 

In short, please don't let the elections turn into a celebrity popularity contest, I beg of you God 

I was going to type something but then I saw that someone already put it into words perfectly. so yeah.

[Hycrox]

"fight fire with fire"

 

you get things burned twice as quickly

 

then again, oprah will probably be sane enough not to start a nuclear war: that seems like the required standard for american presidents in 2020

[Felicity]

im gonna go into politics when im a famous author and im gonna save the world yup

[mde2001]

I swear to god, if you guys end up with another celebrity president the world is just going to stop taking your voters seriously. The fact that Oprah is charismatic and writes/ reads good speeches means that she can be invaluable in the campaign aspect of the process, but when push comes to shove, she has no real political knowledge or ability. Good ideals are pretty much useless if you're unable to convert them into policy.

My personal picks would be either Warren or Gillibrand. They're both articulate progressives who have (particularly in Warren's case) really strong voting records and are experienced enough politicians to be able to sell their ideas to both voters and congress. That being said I feel like the DNC is more likely to nominate someone less risky like McCain or Booker, or possibly just decide that nothing matters and go with Sanders for some inexplicable reason.  

  

[Odybld]

Oh come on, you had Ronald motheraeffin Reagan when the Soviet Union wasn't just a thing, but also under Brezhnev. Most of you just can't handle it that your current prez has an annoying twitter. If you want to play the responsibility game, imprison George W. Bush for some nice crimes against humanity and then we can talk. 

 

Politics in the US are a bunch of sugardaddies betting on two different groups of chore boys, while having a friendly discussion over just how hard everyone and everything around them gets effed, from the people to the planet. Trump hasn't made any big difference, Obama didn't, the only recent one who did was a warmongering criminal. But he doesn't have an annoying twitter so who does even care about the consequences of war? Not the biggest superpower on the planet, that's who.

 

So either if you think that Oprah can win the voting game or believe political acumen, it's all the same in the end

 

Yeah I may be feeling just a tad cynical, so no nice grassroots and discussion things from me to be said

[5hift]

1 hour ago, Odybld said:

Oh come on, you had Ronald motheraeffin Reagan when the Soviet Union wasn't just a thing, but also under Brezhnev. Most of you just can't handle it that your current prez has an annoying twitter. If you want to play the responsibility game, imprison George W. Bush for some nice crimes against humanity and then we can talk. 

 

Politics in the US are a bunch of sugardaddies betting on two different groups of chore boys, while having a friendly discussion over just how hard everyone and everything around them gets effed, from the people to the planet. Trump hasn't made any big difference, Obama didn't, the only recent one who did was a warmongering criminal. But he doesn't have an annoying twitter so who does even care about the consequences of war? Not the biggest superpower on the planet, that's who.

 

So either if you think that Oprah can win the voting game or believe political acumen, it's all the same in the end

 

Yeah I may be feeling just a tad cynical, so no nice grassroots and discussion things from me to be said

What's your point here? Just because we've had or have bad presidents doesn't mean we should just say "Fuck it." and vote whatever random person we happen to arbitrarily like into office.

 

If its all the same in the end, we may as well just end the world right here right now. That's the real endgame anyways right?

 

Trying to prolong this pathetic human existence as much as possible. /s

[NickCrash]

1 minute ago, 5hift said:

What's your point here? Just because we've had or have bad presidents doesn't mean we should just say "Fuck it." and vote whatever random person we happen to arbitrarily like into office.

That's exactly what's happening when Oprah is seriously considered as a candidate for the presidency.

[5hift]

Just now, NickCrash said:

That's exactly what's happening when Oprah is seriously considered as a candidate for the presidency.

Lol then its our duty as citizens to do whatever is legally within our power to stop this.

 

Simple solution is just to not vote for her if she by some miracle manages to become a candidate.

 

I seriously doubt that would even happen. I think the only reason this is even being discussed is because a vocal minority and the media just blow this shit completely out of proportion.

[NickCrash]

I would as well, had the events of the previous elections not happened. People voted up a meme for president, and Hillary was supported by the media pretty much from the start of her campaign as the democratic candidate. Having a two-party system (courtesy of the winner-takes-all voting system) makes it feasible (at least not easy) for such things to happen.

 

 

[Lord Drakyle]

So if i'm understanding this right...people in America are considering making someone popular who isn't qualified for politics to be a politician? why? isn't the first and most important thing about being a politician, to be able to tell lies that people believe even though they know it's a lie? pretty sure Oprah can't do that.

 

Pretty much on a more serious note of it, voting someone like Oprah in would just toss the idea out the window of qualifications for a job since what's the point working hard to become qualified and knowledgeable for a career when you can just become popular and then say I shall now be a brain surgeon or I will be the president?

[Chase]

I for one think that it's completely fair that folks around the world point to America and scoff at what is going on with our political system. (although just because some alternative organization from Malaysia says so, that doesn't necessarily mean that Bush is a war criminal. I'd be more concerned if the actual ICC made that call.)

 

It actually makes me happy to agree with most folks for once - and I actually think Oprah is a step up from what we have now in terms of international compassion and perhaps intelligence.

 

---

 

That being said, I asked the question to entertain a fun discussion, and we have people getting wound up over it, foreign or domestic. Goodness. It's not like being President can't be something rich people choose to want to be, either. There have been several celebrity-turned-politicians that have panned out alright. It's not a foreign concept that people should be angered over - and it only really makes sense because people still are angered about Trump being afforded that opportunity.

 

I for one think that everyone should have the right to get into politics if they want to. Perhaps starting off with one of the most powerful offices in the world isn't a good recommendation - but that doesn't mean the country can afford to have the office be rendered completely inept.

 

For example, Trump did safely navigate the country through nearly his first year without us crashing and burning. He may not have as many legislative victories to his name - and that doesn't mean we've seen him act presidential throughout - but you can't take the fact away from him.

 

Trump has almost been president for a year - and America is still here, free to think about who his successor might be.

 

Can we have fun now?

[Maelstrom]

You mean Trump's own party opposed quite a bit of what was proposed in Trump's name in order to keep 'em from burning the house down. *Points at McCain holding out against the repeal without replacement*

 

 

If you really wanna have fun imagining famous candidates... How about Pres. Steven Colbert and VP John Stewart? Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson? The Rock and Kevin Heart (he can double as the new Anger Translator)? Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny Devito (perhaps reprising their "Twins" roles)? Or the Rock and Arnold? Tenacious D? Ellen and Oprah?

 

I'm sure you guys can come up with some interesting candidates. Or some obviously bad candidates, like Seth Rogan and James Franco. Tommy Wiseau and Nick Cage?

[Chase]

None of those other folks were speculated recently for being president quite like Oprah has been.

 

---

 

I know people don't want to hear this, but the Democrats really do want need to be smart with who they pick to run against Trump in 2020, because despite having 90 percent of all media coverage of him in 2017 lampoon and undercut him, he's got several wins on the board and can easily win re-election based of what he was able to do just in his first year.

• Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.
• Trade deals with China, Vietnam, and South Korea.
• Improved relations with Israel.
• A successfully signed new tax plan.
• Defeating ISIS (or continuing to do so as Obama was)
• 67 Obama-era regulations being tossed.
• a 41% decline in undocumented immigrant crossing apprehensions.
• The Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines being constructed, not only uncapping more energy here at home but creating 42,000 jobs in doing so.

And NONE of that is representative of the growing stock market and consumer confidence that is largely being credited to Trump's actions -or- the continued decline in unemployment from the Obama Administration despite going in the complete opposite direction policy-wise.

 

The Democrats don't have a slam-dunk race in 2020 at all if this continues. They already rely heavily on the media to demean this president day in and day out - to the point where even former Democratic President Jimmy Carter feels bad for the guy.

 

But - oh gosh, he didn't deliver on Obamacare repeal in 100 days like he promised. Well, that's government for him.

---

 

In all honesty, the only embarrassing thing about Trump so far has been his mouth and his Twitter fingers. He is very naturally insensitive when addressing the public. That hasn't transpired to a bad presidency.

 

If there is three more years of this - I'll probably be a Trump voter unless the Democrats have someone good to oppose him. This time, the man isn't a political novice with a big mouth. He'd be a president with the credentials to back up his talk.

[Maelstrom]

Well sure, none of them were speculated about recently.  but this is supposed to be a fun thread, not a serious thread. Or did you not you say that?

 

 

 

Gorsich- major win for republicans. Holding out democratic nominees until they had the majority and then voted him in pretty hard. Just like they blocked most everything Obama tried to do. GJ I guess. It's how parties aim to be...

 

Trade deals with China, Vietnam, and SK? Please, tell me more about these deals. I see average Americans winning out this because of reduced cost of cell phones and other items they use so much .... but I don't see them winning because that takes businesses and jobs away from local Americans (do I sound republican here, cuz I bring up this line of logic?). Trade deals basically means: reduced import taxes on items, which means they are better able to compete with locals selling the same, or same type of things. Import costs get lower and thus can reduce costs to consumers at least a much but not likely to in the long run because companies skim as much profit as they can get away with.... seriously, name a company that has actually increased worker wages as a result of top-down economic policies. And then name the reason why other companies and businesses haven't.

 

I'll wait. For eternity. Cuz they don't... And if you find one, tell me so i can work for them...

 

Also, he likes to claim he repealed Obamacare... he didn't. He only repealed the fact that people with pre-existing conditions wouldn't have to pay more for healthcare when dealing with insurance companies. I mean, being born with a congenital condition or catching the aids, or parkisnon's disease when you're young.... since you're gonna die... since you know it, your family knows it, your neighbors know it... eventually... wow... that's a bad bet... You have to pay more  for insurance because you are riskier and for sure gonna die sooner. Why does life insurance exist again? Oh yeah, to make a profit off of people who are sick and dying and occasionally pay out to those those few surviving families who meet the conditions. You do know how insurance models work, right? You also realize how bad it is for insurance companies to insure people with high risk factors. That makes them higher cost to ensure cuz their actual death means that many other people have to pay into the scare scheme just to pay out one person's death that they insured against. I mean, you do know that

 

Improved relations with Israel? You mean picking a side in the Israel-Palestinian conflict? I mean, I would have picked the same in a super tight spot and had to pick who I was more familiar with but trump is completely ignorant of the entire situation. it was pretty obvious when he proclaimed that whatever agreement the two sides reached would be what he supported... cuz they haven't agreed on much in generations. I mean, unlke anti-semites, I think people realize that Jerusalem and the surrounding lands are far more complicated than they realize. I mean, we already militaristicly and ideologically side with Israel in any conflict. I don't see how we're any closer to finding a resolution just because trump decides to dump his sympathy on israel without considering what palestinians have to say on the matter.